concerning things in Boston [Massachusetts] and vicinity. I saw concerning the commencement of the distraction in Boston and vicinity, that if God's order had been observed by the church and each had understood his place and kept in it, the trouble would not have occurred,^{2
Details follow further on of accusations raised against Sr. Temple of Boston.} and the church would now be in a healthy state. But some have run before they have been sent, and confusion has followed.1EGWLM 334.4

I saw the conference at Fairhaven [Massachusetts] last March, that it was an important one³

The Fairhaven conference was advertised for the weekend of February 27-29, 1852, “and longer if thought best.” Among the business carried out at the conference was the appointment of local agents for the Review. Full confidence was expressed for “Bro. White in the management of the paper.”

See: O. Davis, “Conferences,” Review, Feb. 3, 1852, p. 88; “The Fairhaven Conference,” Review, Mar. 23, 1852, p. 108.

and in an important time. Souls were getting waked up to the truth, their expectations were raised and were not realized, and it was worse than if they had had no meeting, for they were farther from the truth when the meeting closed than when it began.1EGWLM 334.5

I saw that Brother Chamberlain [Ezra L. H. Chamberlain]⁴

Identity: A report in the Review on the Fairhaven conference provides first name initials of several leading figures who were present: “Brn. F. Wheeler, O. Davis, H. S. Gurney, E.L.H. Chamberlain, J. C. Day, and O. Nichols.”

See: “The Fairhaven Conference,” Review, Mar. 23, 1852, p. 108.

was not in the way of his duty when he went to Fairhaven, Portland [Maine], Topsham [Maine], Paris [Maine], etc. I saw that he encouraged others to attend the meeting at Fairhaven whose duty it was to remain at home,^{5
A main focus of this vision was the problem of unsuitable and “self-sent” traveling preachers who absorbed scarce donated funds for their travels while well-qualified preachers were sometimes unable to travel for lack of funds. In the case of E.L.H. Chamberlain, “God has shown me,” Ellen White wrote two years earlier, “that it was not his duty to travel. … I saw that he was not one of the messengers.” According to James White's summary of this vision, Brethren Ralph and Chase also belonged to those preachers who were “clogs” at the Fairhaven conference.
See: Ellen G. White, Ms 4, 1850 (Jan. 28); James White to “Dear Brother,” Sept. 30, 1852.} and if these individuals had not gone, God would have sent sufficient laborers that were humble, and that He would have worked through them, the cause would have progressed, and souls would have embraced the truth. But the cause was wounded by the reason of some moving out of their place, and taking a work on them that God had never laid on them.1EGWLM 334.6

I saw that individuals when they returned from Fairhaven, did not return right, and Bro. Chamberlain encouraged the church meeting that was held in Boston,⁶

The exact date of the Boston church meeting is not known, but from the description given here appears to have been held in early March 1852.

encouraged Brother Chase^{7
Identity: A number of persons bearing the surname “Chase” appear in the Review in the 1850s. A positive identification of which of these is the “Brother Chase” of this letter can hardly be made. There does, however, seem to be the suggestion both in this letter and in James White's account that Bro. Chase is a preacher. The only Chase in the Review from this period explicitly described as a preacher is David Chase, of Fairhaven/Acushnet, Massachusetts. No positive identification, however, can be made here.
See: Search term “Chase” in Words of the Pioneers; James White to “Dear Brother,” Sept. 30, 1852.} to bring his troubles before the church, when neither Brother Chamberlain or the church had anything to do with it, until the Bible rule had been strictly followed^{8
See: Matt. 18:15-17.} by Brother Chase, and instead of bringing out Sister Temple's [Elizabeth Temple]^{9
Identity: The Review in 1853 mentions a “Sr. E. Temple of Boston, Mass.” This may be the “Sister Temple” referred to, since Sr. Temple is closely tied to Boston in this passage. The full name “Elizabeth Temple” is given in her obituary.
See: “Appointments,” Review, May 26, 1853, p. 8; obituary: “Elizabeth Temple,” Review, Feb. 24, 1885, p. 127.} faults before the church, it ought to have been brought to her, and have given her [a] chance to have answered for herself, and to have cleared herself if she could.^{10
The specific charges made against Elizabeth Temple by Brother Chase are not known. Mrs. Temple's standing with the Boston group does not appear to have suffered any longstanding damage. Some months later the Review informed its readers that “meetings will be held every Sabbath” at the home of “Sr. E. Temple of Boston.”
See: “Appointments,” Review, May 26, 1853, p. 8.}1EGWLM 335.1

I saw that Brother and Sister Chase did very wrong in listening to the reports of that wicked girl of Sister Gorham's¹¹

Identity: It is tempting to conclude that Ellen White is referring here to a daughter of Elizabeth Gorham's who is repeatedly mentioned by her in correspondence between 1848 and 1851. But Elizabeth Gorham lived in Mason, New Hampshire, some 50 miles [80 kilometers] from Boston, the scene of the action in this letter. For a discussion of the identity of “Sister Gorham,” see Lt 5, 1849 (Apr. 21), note 25.

that God hated her cruel disobedience to her mother and her rebellion to Him. I saw that it was the work of Satan to bring trouble into the camp by wicked children, and their stories never should be listened to and encouraged, and confidence put in them. When they talk against a child of God, they must be silenced at once, and their testimony should never be received or preferred before the testimony of one who has professed the truth of God, and has been united with the body. I saw that when Brother Chase brought these things out in meeting, he did not profess the meek spirit of Jesus, but was agitated by a wrong spirit. I saw that it was the same with Sister Chase. I saw that Brother Chamberlain possessed a flattering spirit, and by flattering Brother and Sister Chase he has injured them much, and he has also injured others in the same way, by praising them up and making a great deal of them.1EGWLM 335.2

I saw that God's messengers did not go with smooth words, but they always bear a plain testimony, even if they are as meek as the beloved disciple; yet they should deal plainly and not flatter even their best friends. I saw if Brother Chamberlain had denied himself in times past when he has been out, and had encouraged his wife and helped her to meetings nearby where she could have got strength, it would have been much more pleasing to God. But he thought too much of his own self-gratification.1EGWLM 336.1

I saw that Brother Chamberlain has been sinking, and the Spirit of God would be entirely taken from him unless he moves more to the glory of God, and less to please himself. I saw that he had too good an opinion of himself, was not as humble before God as he ought to be, when he has made so many crooked moves. I saw that it had weighed too much with him what others said. Brother Day [John C. Day]¹²

Identity: Although there are a number of Adventists with the surname “Day” in the 1850s, there are certain indications that John C. Day is being referred to here. Most telling is the fact that “J. C. Day” was a leading figure at the Fairhaven conference, as reported in the Review, and Lt 4 seems to be describing the character and actions of the leaders participating in the Fairhaven and Boston meetings.

See: “The Fairhaven Conference,” Review, Mar. 23, 1852, p. 108; search term “Day” in Words of the Pioneers.

has not had the right judgment and has encouraged Brother Chamberlain and others to travel, and, if they should go [it] would only be a curse to the cause,^{13
James White, commenting on this part of the vision, agrees with vigor: “I see means consecrated to God worse than thrown away in being given to such men as Brethren Chamberlain, Lothrop, and I think means given to Brother Day has hurt him.”
See: James White to “Dear Brother,” Sept. 30, 1852.} and would ruin their own souls.1EGWLM 336.2

I saw that if Brother Chamberlain had more of an eye single to the glory of God, and cared less for the good opinion of his brethren, he would not make so many crooked moves. I saw in the case of trial in Boston, he should not have made up his mind so readily, not gone to the unexperienced to consult with them, but he should have gone to those who had taken a straightforward course. He should have consulted Brother Nichols [Otis Nichols]¹⁴

Identity: Otis Nichols, a leading Sabbatarian figure living in Dorchester, just outside Boston, would have been well informed about the problems relating to Elizabeth Temple in Boston. In addition, the Review reports that “O. Nichols” attended the Fairhaven conference, and Lt 4 seems to be an analysis of various Sabbatarian leaders at that meeting in February/March 1852.

See: Otis Nichols, “The Fairhaven Conference,” Review, Mar. 23, 1852, p. 108.

before giving his opinion that the trouble must be settled, and that there must be a church meeting to settle it. There has been too much moving at random without the counsel and strength of God.1EGWLM 336.3

I saw that Brother Day had too much confidence in himself, and did not lean upon the strong arm of God enough. I saw that he has been mistaken and thought that God had a greater work for him to do than He had ever laid upon him, and that there was more importance attached to his labors than there really was. I saw that he had used too much means and traveled too extensively. I saw that Brother Day went to Conn. when God did not send him,¹⁵

No mention of J. C. Day's trip to Connecticut has been found; however, there are scattered reports of Day attending meetings in Leverett, Massachusetts, and Washington, New Hampshire, during the previous 12 months, as well as the meetings in Fairhaven and Boston mentioned in this letter.

See: G. W. Holt, “From Bro. Holt,” Review, Mar. 2, 1852, p. 102; (writer unknown), “To the Dear Disciples of Jesus in Dartmouth,” Nov. 7, 1851.

and he did not have right judgment, for two dead bodies that had nearly corrupted the whole church before they were separated from it he had tried to unite again with the living. I saw that God was not in the move at all, and that Conn. was in an awful dark place on account of the crooked moves and errors of some there.1EGWLM 337.1

I saw that Brother and Sister Chase had looked on Sister Temple as an ungodly woman, and had not given up that idea or those wrong feelings yet. They had accused her falsely and had used deception in her case. I saw that Brother and Sister Chase had a proud heart that had not yet been fully subdued by grace.1EGWLM 337.2

I saw Brother Lothrop [Howard Lothrop],¹⁶

Identity: With one or two exceptions, only H. (Howard) and E. (Edward) Lothrop appear in the Review during this period. Of these, only Howard Lothrop fits the description here of a preacher who “had traveled too extensively.” While there is no record of Edward preaching, Howard was active in Canada East as well as undertaking an extensive preaching tour of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island some months earlier. The identity of Howard Lothrop as this “Brother Lothrop” seems certain.

See: Howard Lothrop, “From Bro. Lothrop,” Mar. 2, 1852, p. 102; search term “Lothrop” in Words of the Pioneers.

that he also had traveled too extensively and was too self-sufficient. I saw that souls who wanted the truth would come into meeting to hear, and repeatedly Brother Lothrop would get up and talk until he would talk the Spirit all away from the meeting. These souls would leave disgusted with the truth, when, if the right course had been taken and Brother Lothrop had not moved in his own strength, the unbelievers would have been convinced that power and strength were with Israel, and they would have decided to have gone with the humble few.1EGWLM 337.3

I saw that Brother Lothrop would have to be more humble before God where he can receive the admonitions of his brethren, and would have to give up his impressions and feelings.¹⁷

This is the earliest negative report of Howard Lothrop's preaching style and his independent attitude toward his colleagues. James White recalled in 1861 that “at almost every meeting we met him [we] had good cause to reprove him for his fanaticism; [and] that he afterwards went in full fury with the Messenger spirits against us and the Review.”

See: James White, “Organization,” Review, Aug. 27, 1861, p. 100.

He has been led by them altogether too much, and he … [The remainder is missing.]1EGWLM 338.1

Ms 4, 1852

Published in YI